memory_alphafandomcom-20200223-history
User talk:J Di
Welcome to Memory Alpha, ! I've noticed that you've already made some contributions to our database – thank you! We all hope that you'll enjoy our activities here and decide to join our community. If you'd like to learn more about working with the nuts and bolts of Memory Alpha, I have a few links that you might want to check out: * Our policies and guidelines provides links to inform you on what is appropriate for Memory Alpha and what is not. Particular items of note are the and policies, the , our , and guidelines for proper . * includes a basic tutorial about how to use our special wikitext code here on Memory Alpha. * Naming conventions provides guidelines on how to name a new page that you may want to create. * The Manual of Style is an overview of the basic guidelines for how to format and style your articles. * is a list of suggestions that can help you put together an article that might end up on our Featured Articles list someday. * See the user projects page for current projects of our archivists, or help us to reduce the number of stubs. * Look up past changes you have made in your log. * Keep track of your favorite Memory Alpha articles through your very own . * Create your own user page and be contacted on this page, your . One other suggestion: if you're going to make comments on talk pages or make other sorts of comments, please be sure to sign them with four tildes (~~~~) to paste in your user name and the date/time of the comment. If you have any questions, please feel free to post them in our Ten Forward community page. Thanks, and once again, welcome to Memory Alpha! – Tom 21:23, 22 December 2008 (UTC) Talk page indenting Please check out too. When responding to discussions, you should ensure that your indenting is always at the same level in that particular discussion. Makes it easier to track and read. and yes, WP does things differently, but we're not WP. :) -- sulfur 20:48, 18 February 2009 (UTC) :Thank you. I hoped it wouldn't be too obvious that I haven't made much of an effort to read up on the local policies and guidelines, but it appears to be shining through, ever bright... Just stuck in old habits, I suppose. J Di 20:52, 18 February 2009 (UTC) USS USS is well established as the registry for Federation starships, not Earth starships. We state on that the appearance of USS in a barely legible graphic was an error; leaving that aside, the lack of a USS on the hull is far more visible and prominent than the graphic's text, and we do weigh things like that when some information is in conflict. If you would like to press your case to the community, please begin a discussion on the article talk page.(especially where what you want to do would also involve changing the name of the article and all incoming links) 31dot (talk) 16:04, February 16, 2017 (UTC) : It is stated on the page for that episode that it's a mistake but the claim is not supported by any evidence; rather, it seems to be an opinion. MA:CANON says that what appears on screen is considered valid and should be used in the case of 'unresolved conflicts', which this would seem to be. Unless you have anything to support your claims that the inclusion of the prefix on the graphic in that episode was an error, its omission from starship hulls does not mean that it couldn't still be a part of the ships' official names. The 'USS' prefix has been in use on ships on Earth since long before Star Trek first aired on television. J Di (talk) 16:36, February 16, 2017 (UTC) In any event, please do not edit war; since you want the change, it is up to you to make your case to the community. Please do so on the article talk page, or even at Ten Forward since you also want to change Enterprise's page. What you want to do involves a lot more than changing the article's content(changing the titles, links, etc.) and needs to be discussed. 31dot (talk) 16:49, February 16, 2017 (UTC) : I agree; continually undoing each other's edits is not going to resolve this situation. However, as my edits are in line with the content policy of this wiki, I believe it is you who should discuss this in one of the available forums. Until such a time that community consensus decides otherwise, the content should remain. J Di (talk) 16:53, February 16, 2017 (UTC) That's not how it works. You want the change, and were reverted, you must be the one to gain consensus for it and justify it. Looking around, it seems that we already address this matter at USS where the article states that it might have been used but was not common. Rick Berman is also quoted as saying that the intent was to not use USS on Earth starships. 31dot (talk) 16:54, February 16, 2017 (UTC) : The content policy would suggest otherwise. By all means, back up your claims with evidence, but it will need to be more than just anecdotal. J Di (talk) 16:56, February 16, 2017 (UTC) ::Put a "pna-inccurate" at the top of the page and discuss it elsewhere. --LauraCC (talk) 16:59, February 16, 2017 (UTC) I have protected the page because you have continued to edit war. If you agree not to edit war, I will remove the protection ASAP. What you want to see is a radical change in what these starships are referred to as by hundreds of thousands of Star Trek fans, staff, and authors and needs to be discussed at least amongst us here. In ten years no one has suggested doing this for a reason. 31dot (talk) 17:00, February 16, 2017 (UTC) : Bullying me into submission just because a screenshot doesn't agree with your way of thinking doesn't fill me with confidence that there's any point in trying to discuss the matter; way more trouble than it's worth. It's more likely that it's not been suggested before because nobody has noticed it before, rather than because Star Trek fans around the world would rather not put the two together, and if you truly felt that this was the case then you would follow the policies of the wiki you administrate and provide a solid argument for why something that has been displayed in a screenshot on the show should be disregarded rather than just throwing your weight around to achieve your personal goal. J Di (talk) 21:47, February 16, 2017 (UTC) MA:RETCON has also been pointed out to me on the Enterprise article. 31dot (talk) 18:18, February 16, 2017 (UTC) If I had wanted to bully you, I would have blocked you; I did not. I protected the page because you would not stop edit warring; as I said, if you agree to not edit war, I would lift the protection(which was only 24 hours anyway). Before I or anyone gets to defending anything, you need to start the discussion for the changes you seek(which, I say again, involve more than merely changing article content). That is how Wikipedia and most every Wiki works. I have already indicated that prominence and intent merit the way the page is written currently(as does MA:RETCON). I noticed it ten years ago and knew it was an error ten years ago. How about you? 31dot (talk) 00:44, February 17, 2017 (UTC)